Debates of Sept. 29th, 1994

Supply

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not exactly the same. I believe the controls on CSIS currently are much stronger.

The allegations that have been made against CSIS and discussed in the House, if they were true, and I stress the word if, I believe there would be cause for us to be concerned and for the government to take a look at how the issue might be addressed or what things might need to be changed.

However, we do have a process in place. SIRC does have authority to investigate all of the activities of CSIS. The standing committee, as the hon. member said earlier, is also holding hearings. Some members opposite are members of this standing committee. They will also be having hearings and reviewing the reports that SIRC has. They will be meeting in front of SIRC yet again.

If at the end of that process, when the report from SIRC comes out and when the standing committee reports to the House on this issue, at that point if hon. members still have problems or this government finds that there are major problems we would be the first to deal with the issue.

I would like the hon. member to at least allow for the process to go through and for the standing committee of the House, which is representative of members of this House, to go through the process rather than engage in a major royal commission which, as I said earlier, costs a great deal of money as we all know. Royal commissions do not always wind up when they are supposed to wind up and they are quite a cumbersome process to set in place when we already have a process. There is no need to duplicate that process at this time.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason CSIS was formed was due to irregularities in surveillance by the previous security organization under the control of the RCMP.

It is well documented that the RCMP broke the laws of Canada investigating a legitimate political movement in Quebec. It is also well documented when this illegal behaviour was revealed the government of the day not only authorized deep investigation but also formed CSIS so its actions would be responsible, law-abiding and within the scope of the law.

Now we have independent concern that CSIS may have encouraged a private citizen to gather information on another legitimate political movement.

What is the difference between the activity of the former security service and the alleged illegal activity of CSIS? I do not see any difference.

On page 48 of the Security Intelligence Review Committee's annual report it states, under the heading surveillance that SIRC is concerned about the large amount of information gathered by CSIS in the course of surveillance operations. On the same page, under sensitive operations, SIRC also is concerned that CSIS undertook a sensitive operation when no definite indications existed that there was actual or potential reason for the intelligence activity.

On page 47 of the same report SIRC expresses concern about the targeting of surveillance. It stated on one occasion the reason for surveillance, and in this case stretched its meaning too far.

SIRC is telling Canadians that CSIS had no real reason to target or conduct surveillance on its target, but it began and continued to monitor and observe its target even though SIRC confirmed it had no legal authority to engage in that behaviour.

SIRC also stated that CSIS used inappropriate or imprecise reasons based upon section II of the CSIS act to target for surveillance. SIRC stated that CSIS had difficulty understanding what was considered an actual threat to the security of Canada. Yet there is no reference that SIRC ordered CSIS to better understand and follow the legislation that governs its operations.

There is another instance in the annual report where SIRC indicated that CSIS targeted another investigation improperly. SIRC announced when reviewing the reasons for the investigation that its investigators said CSIS did not have any justification to pursue its surveillance. Again SIRC reported CSIS was running amok, but there is no record of SIRC doing anything about it.

The act governing CSIS states quite clearly that CSIS must not have used and cannot use its powers unreasonably or unnecessarily and must perform its duties and functions effectively, efficiently and, most of all, legally.

If CSIS paid a private citizen to infiltrate, assist in forming and spreading a message of supremacy, that clearly illustrates that CSIS violated the abuse of powers section of the guiding principles in the CSIS act.

If CSIS allowed this same private citizen to encourage white supremists to join and infiltrate a legitimate political party, that is certainly violating the concern about abuse of power.

The Reform Party of Canada is not a group of terrorists. It is not a group of agents of hostile intelligence services and it is certainly not a threat to the security of Canada. The Reform Party, whether this government likes it or not, is the party of choice for the law-abiding citizens of Canada.

How can this Liberal government expect law-abiding citizens to continue their respect for the law when a government agency is accused of blatantly and with disregard for the legitimate purpose break the law with impunity?

At the very least the government watchdog for illegal activity by CSIS, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, must announce to Parliament in no uncertain terms if CSIS allowed its informant to be a mole in the Reform Party, if CSIS allowed its informant to encourage white supremists to join the Reform Party? If this occurred SIRC must make that knowledge known to the entire public.

If CSIS knew the private citizen was actively involved with white supremists, becoming active in the Reform Party would publicly damage the reputation of this legitimate political movement.

SIRC and CSIS are responsible to Parliament for their actions and Parliament is responsible to the people of Canada. At the very least, this Liberal government must tell the people of Canada whether CSIS allowed a loose cannon to sully a legitimate political party.

If CSIS was actively involved in initiating a supremist group, forming a supremist group and funding a supremist group through the actions of their informant, full disclosure of this despicable act will not be a threat to Canada's security or to Canadians.

If CSIS was involved the only threat full disclosure will have is to the authorities in charge of CSIS.

Considering if the illegal activity was sanctioned by those in charge, this Liberal government must give a full, detailed and in-depth disclosure to all parliamentarians and the people of Canada the reason CSIS considered a legitimate political party, my party, the Reform Party of Canada, a target for surveillance.

Since this Liberal government refuses to initiate a royal commission into the possible illegal activities of CSIS we must consider why this Liberal government is trying to hide behind secrecy and the CSIS act. All Canadians must consider why the governing party in the House of Commons refuses to initiate a thorough investigation of possible illegal activity by a department of government, displaying a total disregard for the laws of this land.

A previous government not only investigated illegal activity by Canada's previous secret service, it disbanded the organization and formed a new service.

No one is suggesting this Liberal government waste tax dollars disbanding and organizing a new service. All Canadians are strongly telling this Liberal government a full investigation, detailed disclosure and removal of those from CSIS, if any, who had knowledge of and supported any illegal activities must take priority over any minor embarrassment that this government could suffer.

To refuse a full inquiry and detailed disclosure to Parliament tells Canadians this government condones unnecessary secrecy and is now abusing the trust given to it by the people of Canada.

This Liberal government may full well claim it does not or did not have anything to do with the possible illegal activity of CSIS because it was not in power when this activity occurred. Refusing to have an investigation into what may have been done will not satisfy the law-abiding people of Canada.

This Liberal government has everything to lose by not holding a full inquiry. It will lose the trust of Canadians and as a governing party that loss of trust can never be regained. That loss of trust may continue diminishing government in the eyes of Canadians, and that can never be allowed.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the hon. member. I can assure the hon. member that no one on this side considers the Reform Party a terrorist organization.

There are all kinds of allegations out there on improprieties and we have set up a mechanism, SIRC, which was established 10 years ago as he very well knows, to look into those kinds of allegations.

Furthermore, we have gone one step further. In co-operation with the opposition benches, Bloc and Reform we have set up a subcommittee on national security issues. One hon. member dealing with this subcommittee has done commendable work. We are looking forward to all the proposals made by the opposition. We are awaiting reports from SIRC. I believe the subcommittee is going to pursue its research on these allegations made against the service.

I want to make sure it is perfectly clear to the opposition benches that never would this government condone spying on legitimate political organizations such as the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.

Since Reform is so concerned about accountability and the way we spend money and controlling the deficit, does the hon. member really believe that by spending $20 million to $25 million on a royal commission we would not be better served by giving the subcommittee on national security issues the time and the chance to look into this and as well as SIRC to report to us and Parliament on what happened or what has allegedly happened? I would like to know if it would be preferable for us to wait before spending $20 million to $25 million of taxpayers' money.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his assurances with regard to the feelings of the Liberals about this particular activity.

I am shocked that anybody from that side of the House would suggest that spending money is wrong. Good grief, it has not shown it in any other direction or area. Spending money has become a very positive, happy thing for this group to do.

I certainly do not believe for a moment that there would be any reason to think this kind of investigation would call for that kind of money. I am pleased to see that this committee has been set up and I hope this government can assure us that once that committee has finished its investigation the Canadian people, not the Reform Party, who have a right to know are thoroughly satisfied that this thing is resolved and if not would it please assure us that we will get to the bottom of it and that it must never occur again in this kind of activity.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question.

The member mentioned in his speech that a parliamentary review must be taken which would cost $25 million because CSIS is accused of breaking the law. The word the hon. member used was accused.

Does the hon. member not think we should wait until there is some evidence before we actually launch such an expensive inquiry rather than going on the basis of an accusation?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not suggest for a moment that we run hairy-scary into some kind of thing that is going to cost millions of dollars. I do not think I indicated that at all.

I did indicate that there is a special group of people put together called SIRC and I think it has a big responsibility to report everything that happens and when I suspect for a moment and when we have reasons to suspect that is not happening, my question in return would be is this Liberal government going to make absolutely certain that these people who are on the payroll

are going to be accountable to the Canadians in earning the bucks that they make. Are they going to do their job or not? Do we have to go to extremes such as a royal commission?

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that members on this side of the House are planning to take their work very seriously and we have countless assurances that members of the security committee including members on the opposite benches are going to look through this thoroughly.

I hope, thanks to the questions raised by the hon. member and his colleagues, that we are going to clarify this thing once and for all.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to speak to this motion. I think there is always a place for this kind of debate. I do not feel this motion is correct. I do feel it is flawed. Nevertheless I think it is always a topic that we on all sides of this House should look at from time to time.

Let me address the motion first and foremost. The word used in the motion is "illegal". A royal commission is to be called because of alleged illegal activities. This appears to rise from allegations in the press, in the media, this is the way we understand events, that would suggest that CSIS has been involved in impropriety that requires an investigation.

I would like to address that because one of the accusations in the press was that the CBC was being spied on by CSIS. I think it was that story more than anything else that fueled the reaction that has led to the debate we have before us and the various studies that are going on as to CSIS activities.

I would like to comment on the story that was in the Toronto Star . I have a document here and I wish to show it. It is relevant. The headline from the Toronto Star states: ``Spy agency kept watch on CBC''. I believe this was a page one story at the time.

Naturally a headline like that is going to cause a lot of concern on all sides of the House and with the public at large. When one examines the actual body of the story that is in question here about the CBC being spied on by CSIS, one discovers that this headline is entirely based on one paragraph in the story. That paragraph reads: "The source reported attempts by Howard Goldenthal, a researcher for the Fifth Estate, a CBC program, to obtain information from the Heritage Front leader Wolfgang Droege about whether members of the Canadian airborne regiment in Somalia had any links with racist groups in Canada.»

It was the Fifth Estate, a CBC program, but it could have just as easily been a CTV program or it could have been an inquiry from the press itself. What we really see here is the informant replying to a legitimate concern that was connected to the possibility that there was racist infiltration of the Canadian airborne regiment.

I think we would all agree that it is legitimate for CSIS to want to examine possibilities such as there may be infiltration of the Canadian forces by a group that represents racist elements. That was the tenor and the content of that particular story. However, the headline was: "Spy agency kept watch on CBC". This is the sort of headline that has probably generated more than anything else this type of public concern.

At issue there is the whole question that we are pursuing something, and I mentioned it to the member for Wild Rose, where a whole debate has been initiated on the basis of allegations and not evidence. I cite that as an example and there are other examples in the media that are basically only allegations that are not supported in any way by fact that we know.

Before we go to a royal commission I stress to the members present that we have to go a little further than allegations that appear in the press.

I would like to go on a bit further. This situation concerns me greatly. We have story that suggests that CSIS had an agent, an undercover person, in an organization that may have sometimes been associated with very right wing activities, and that this agent may have engaged in activities as part of his cover that could be construed as right wing or even racist.

What is the difference between this person, if he really did exist, and a police undercover operation involving a plainclothes person penetrating a drug ring? Surely we would all agree that it is perfectly proper for a police agency in an effort to expose crime, in an effort to ferret out threats to national security or municipal security, if you will, to have an undercover agent and we would expect as part of that cover that the agent would take on the persona of the group he is trying to penetrate.

I will take that a step further. I do not have any background any more than any other member here about what was actually occurring. I submit that if this Grant Bristow was an undercover agent doing a legitimate task for national security and as a result of the leaks to the press has been disrupted in a project that had great value to the security of this nation, then I would say something very unfortunate has occurred.

We should be disparaging of what occurred, not coming down on CSIS on mere allegations. CSIS, because it is a security agency and an agency engaged in secret intelligence, does not have the ability to speak out and simply defend itself without jeopardizing agents like somebody who may be doing an undercover operation.

There is another issue here, the whole question of the leak of the documents that led to the disclosure that CSIS was engaged in certain undercover operations.

The one involving the Heritage Front I do not know what damage is involved and I do not know whether it is true. However, I will draw the House's attention to something everyone seems to forget. There was a first leaked newspaper story in connection with this business. That leaked story resulted in a headline in the Toronto Sun on August 13, 1994, sometime before the Toronto Star headline that I mentioned, and it stated: ``CSIS-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Colleagues, there is a rule which refers to our not being able to use any form of exhibits in the House. I know that quite often all of us engage in quoting from materials, including the newsprint, which is correct in debate, but certainly I would encourage all members to be mindful of the rule regarding exhibits and not to display them in an open fashion to the attention of viewers or others in the House. I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth to continue his intervention.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected on that. I will read the headline because it is not relevant to display it: "CSIS spied on metro Somalis". The gist of the story, based on a leaked document, was that CSIS did have agents engaged in some undercover work in connection with the Somali community because it feared that there were some violent elements in this community that were a threat.

Certainly with the very recent history of the problems in Somalia, we would all agree that CSIS had legitimate cause for concern. We would probably also agree that its wanting to get information from the Somali community in this case was proper.

What is not proper is the fact that this document was leaked and the story appeared in the newspaper. I do not fault the newspaper because newspapers must run with the information they receive. The fault was the fact that a document was put out that very obviously was designed to or at least would have had some result in damaging a very legitimate operation on the part of CSIS.

That brings us to a very important point which is that we should be deploring in this House the fact that somewhere along the line the system went awry and that an individual in a trusted post was able to collect CSIS documents with the apparent intention of leaking them to the newspapers for whatever reason. We can only be grateful that the Toronto Star actually ran a photograph of one of these leaked documents leading to the person who was leaking them.

I do not want to sound very narrow and rednecked about this, to use that expression, but I really do hope that the government does take some very positive steps-and I hope it has the mechanisms-to prevent civil servants and people in trust from leaking documents of this nature. We must have orderly government, be it in connection with the secrets or intelligence agencies or cabinet confidentiality or whatever. This was a very serious precedent and we should all be concerned.

I believe I have time to move on to another topic which is the issue of accountability that has been raised time and time again and which I believe is the aim of the motion. It is a very important issue. I have heard the speakers on all sides and heard the explanation from my own members on the structure that has been set up to try to make CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment accountable.

In the final analysis, when any agency or any government department is engaged in secret work, as many are-the military, for example, certainly is engaged in secret work; it has to do military testing and that kind of thing-the guarantee of accountability is the quality of the civil servants and the strength of democracy.

We can put the legislative controls in place but nothing is guaranteed because people work of necessity in the shadows. When we are dealing with foreign intelligence or counterintelligence we have to work in the shadows. Despite what has been said I do not really believe that members opposite think we can expose that to parliamentary committee examination. It really is impractical. We would lose all our allies if we did that, at the very least.

It still is a problem. How do we bridge the gap of confidence in the personnel who are engaged in activities that are not immediately seen, that are not laid out before you?

The answer ultimately is having a strong democracy and a strong screening process. The only thing I would add to that, and it is a pet thing with me, is that I would have a very carefully documented accountability.

Over and above what we have heard here, the only way we can control these individuals who must work behind the scenes, is to require them to put their orders always on paper and have this paper record preserved in perpetuity. We have to have a control that will not allow people to destroy records.

I believe when democracy is strong with a strong and dedicated bureaucracy, the control on the bureaucracy for doing the right thing when it has to operate in secrecy is to be answerable to history. When the historian comes along 30 or 40 years later and looks at it and sees that even if the decision was marginal or borderline or questionable, at least he sees the bureaucracy operated in good faith. The vast majority of people in our bureaucracy, certainly in this country, operate in a spirit of good faith and try their very best. This is an important point to bear in mind.

I will conclude by talking about the future of CSIS. This also is at stake in this debate, the fact that the world has changed radically, as we know, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and so forth. This has to and must change the face of counterintelligence.

CSIS is primarily a counterintelligence agency. We must be very clear on that. New threats are spread across the board. We now have situations where very small countries can pose very great threats. We all realize there is a terrific problem now in keeping controls on plutonium. The great stocks of plutonium that exist in the former Soviet Union may pop up in any third world country. I regret to say that the technology for making small bombs is well known. This is a fundamental threat.

Fundamental again is the threat of biological and chemical warfare agents, particularly biological warfare agents. These are the weapons and dangers of very small nations. We have to have a constant and very alert secret service that examines these dangers worldwide. We also have to examine these dangers internally.

We have an open door immigration policy, which I think is wonderful, but we have to understand that with that open door immigration policy we are also open to genuine security threats. It is not just obvious criminals, but the ones that are not obvious, the ones that may be carrying the torch of hatred from the animosities of their homelands which they might employ against other ethnic groups in Canada. We must have a strong organization to look at that.

I have one more thing to say. This pertains to the Communications Security Establishment, which we alluded to before. The world is a global village. The threat now goes beyond just security threats. The threats are also economic and political. We have to be aware of the fact that Canada is a nation that relies enormously on trade.

I see the Minister for International Trade is here. He will agree with me that Canada's future is delicately balanced on our ability to compete worldwide. Not every country competes fairly. Some countries are willing to resort to intelligence gathering in various ways and in other illegal activities, which may affect our ability to trade honestly and adequately.

The role of our intelligence organizations involves making sure Canada is always dealt with fairly. We must have a strong intelligence service that will back us up because the record of history shows, going back to previous centuries and this century, that a nation with a strong intelligence service will use it and use it sometimes, I hate to say, on the weaker. We must be strong in order to compete.

Finally, if ever there was a reason against separatism, against the break-up of the country into smaller pieces, it is the expense of running a comprehensive and professional intelligence service.

If we separated, the new piece-a separate Quebec-would have to set up its own intelligence service. It would lose all it has gained from the very fine intelligence services that we have had since the second world war. It would be on its own and it would not have friends. That is a very dangerous situation to be in.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I listened to them carefully. He cautioned members of the House, correctly so, that we should not condemn CSIS simply based on allegations and rumours or innuendo.

Yet I have sat in the House and listened to members across the way label members of the Reform Party as racists and bigots. I have heard those words spoken in the House. In fact the Deputy Prime Minister had to recall the fact that she called one of our members a racist during debate. That is on the record.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning unparliamentary language. I would like to know if the hon. member has any source or if this is actually printed in Hansard .

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am not aware of the allegations or of the exact scenario that has been referred to, but I will take the time to remind everyone that in the conduct of the business of this Chamber we should all be respectful of one another and this institution.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude that those kinds of comments we have been subjected to without proof, without evidence have been done simply for the purpose of political partisanship.

I would like to ask the member if it is a fact that this Bristow individual infiltrated the Reform Party in order to discredit it, who would benefit from that? Why would anyone in CSIS want to discredit the Reform Party of Canada?

My analysis of this situation is that no one would want to take the time or energy in order to discredit the Reform Party. But who would benefit from it if the Reform Party was in fact discredited? It would be the political parties because we were vying for support from the Canadian public.

Is it not reasonable that these two bodies, SIRC as well as the subcommittee, should examine whether the Solicitor General of the day politicized CSIS in order to do that very thing and received the benefit that would come if this party was discredited by those kinds of labels? I would ask my hon. colleague to comment.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that the examination of this issue should go wherever the parliamentary committee deems it ought to go and call whatever witnesses the committee thinks appropriate.

I do point out that there is an enormous assumption of dishonesty here. Is my colleague opposite suggesting that the previous government was so corrupt, and it would be corruption, that it actually could politicize CSIS and do what he said? Otherwise, unless that assumption is made there is no reason, no motive to believe that this Mr. Bristow did infiltrate the Reform Party.

I submit that the apparent lack of motive makes it enormously probable that this did not happen.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member who just spoke mentioned the role of CSIS in connection with our economy and the protection of our patents here in Canada. I know that several years ago, there were frequent complaints that Canada was a sitting duck for this kind of espionage. I think that was one of the roles CSIS had to play.

Since the hon. member appears to be very familiar with the agency, with CSIS, I want to ask him, since we want an inquiry, whether this could also be part of the inquiry, in other words, why Canada is a sitting duck for industrial espionage. We are told it is terribly easy. People come from all over the world and apparently have no trouble taking or stealing-I think that is the word-something on which we have spent a lot of time and effort.

Since we do a lot of research in this country, why is it so easy to come and steal the results of our research? Perhaps this should be included in the inquiry the Bloc Quebecois is calling for, so we could find out what the problems are and why it is so easy to get away with that.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think it was a very good one indeed.

The reason Canada has been perceived in this way-and I think it is a very serious problem-is that perhaps not enough money has been invested in CSIS in the past. Perhaps CSIS has not had the support it deserves. I am aware that there was a major investment in CSIS just recently. A new CSIS building has just gone up south of the city here. I think progress is being made.

I do not think a royal commission, if I may say to my colleague, is the way to go in getting to the root of his particular concern which I share. I think this should be the subject matter of the appropriate parliamentary committee.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I used the word if quite often, as did the hon. member across the way. We have a couple of speeches with a lot of ifs. I think his if was a little bigger than my if. He was talking about it being a shame if Mr. Bristow happened to be on the right track of something and this whole thing interfered with it.

I know what I believe. I do not think there is any doubt about it. One thing that has been lost in the country is the trust of the people who sent us here. That trust has been lost in the public. All we have to do is open our ears and listen to the fears of people about corruption, suspected corruption or supposed corruption, for the last 30 years.

So far no one has accused me of it, but I have seen surveys asking people what is the most popular occupation or who are the most valuable persons in the country. When we see doctors and teachers on the list and find politicians underneath lawyers I think we in the House have something to think about.

I like the assurances of the parliamentary secretary, but I am afraid assurances like those ones have become nothing more than political rhetoric for Canadians. They have heard it before. They probably heard it before that hon. member was born. It has been going on and on.

What does the member suggest as a basis of the ongoing studies on what actions SIRC should take when it has obviously identified some serious problems? What actions does he think the committee will take if it verifies even some of the allegations?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member commented on the public's lack of trust. I submit to him that we do not help the public's confidence or trust when we engage in major, shall we say, witch-hunts based on unsubstantiated allegations as in this case and as occurred many times in case of the previous Parliament. When the House is drawn into debate and people make allegations across the floor without proper evidence we erode the public's trust.

On his other comments, I cannot forecast what a review committee or the people reviewing the matter ought to do until they see the evidence. They will make their own decisions.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also rise in support of this motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse, whose riding happens to be next to mine. I think it would be worthwhile to remind the hon. members that the motion in question reads as follows:

That this House denounces the government for its refusal to set up a Royal Commission of inquiry on the alleged illegal activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I listened with interest to the remarks made by previous speakers and I think that what the opposition is suggesting is not that all activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service be abolished but rather-and the Bristow affair was the pretext

for introducing this motion-to ensure that the Canadian public, and particularly the government and the House of Commons, be as well informed as possible on the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The public has reason to believe that illegal activities have taken place. During hearings held by the House sub-committee looking into this matter, our colleague, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm asked a number of questions which, to tell the truth, remained unanswered for the most part. That is an important fact.

I think that the Canadian public, the Canadians taxpayers who are paying to receive services, are entitled to get as much information as possible. Often members are asked questions and if those of us who sit on committees are unable to get the information required to answer these questions, how are we expected to adequately inform the public?

This motion is about setting up a royal commission of inquiry to do everything possible to make sure that, at least the members of Parliament sitting on the commission, hear all the facts.

Let me tell you about my personal experience as a Quebecer. It is a fact that we have gone through some rather quiet times, but I recall an event that many Quebecers of my generation remember. There was this incident in 1973 when a barn was burned down and a list of members of the Parti Quebecois, illegally seized. Quebecers of my generation remember that incident. The younger people were not around then and cannot remember, but it has remained in the minds of many Quebecers.

At that time, some measures were taken; then there was the Keable Commission which was finally able to establish that some illegal acts had been committed. Of course, not as many people were convicted as should have been, but the facts were proven. After that, there was a relatively quiet period.

In spite of all that, in the more recent past-I refer to a certain affair which I prefer not to name-there was evidence of an attempt to infiltrate not a political party but the Government of Quebec.

The Bristow affair is another case that has come to our attention. Everyone saw it on the news.

This was not just an attempt; another political party was actually infiltrated. This time it was not the Parti Quebecois but the Reform Party. I find such infiltration unacceptable on purely "democratic grounds".

Problems of infiltration by secret agents from foreign countries were mentioned. That may be, but since the Berlin Wall fell, I do not think that there is a really big threat from foreign sources. I listened to my colleague from Longueuil; yes, a security intelligence service may indeed be necessary, but it must operate legally, within a legal framework.

The issue here is not the one raised by the member for Longueuil, but rather illegal activities. Given what such a security service costs, I think that not only Quebecers but all Canadians are entitled to answers.

I will mention some questions that could be raised in a royal commission of inquiry. Has CSIS directly or indirectly obtained information on Canadian media or political parties since 1989? We admit that we must not go back too far, but since 1989. Yes or no? We were unable to obtain that information. Without necessarily disclosing the information itself. However, if the answer is yes, it should perhaps be studied by a sub-committee. There could be some really important things. We should at least know whether or not information was gathered directly or indirectly on the Canadian media or on recognized Canadian political parties. Not small groups from abroad but legally recognized political parties that are among this country's democratic institutions.

Could we have an answer on this? That is the kind of question to which Canadians would like an answer.

Did the Inspector General of CSIS and the Security Intelligence Review Committee find cases where information was gathered on the media, unions, political parties and other legitimate Canadian organizations?

Rightly or wrongly, as a member of Parliament, and before that as a member of public organizations, people told me personally on many occasions-that is not hearsay-of their concerns regarding some individuals then involved in militant and union activities-I could give examples of CSIS collaborators infiltrating the CNTU, a major union body in Quebec. Infiltration may be acceptable but I think that dynamite, arson and theft warrant investigation.

I have a general question: What is the basis-I would very much like to know that-and the scope of the contacts which CSIS has with foreign intelligence services and with the Communications Security Establishment of the Department of National Defence? This should not be an official secret. What is the basis and the scope of the activities of that service? We should be allowed to know that. Why is it not the case?

Does CSIS receive information from other Canadian or foreign intelligence services on activities conducted by Canadians within our borders? If so, is the receipt of such information by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service legal under the CSIS Act? Is it legal or not? Bench marks are required. If such bench marks exist, then they must be known.

In the Bristow case, when did CSIS become aware of Mr. Grant Bristow's participation-this is very important-in political events held by the Reform Party of Canada? Did CSIS end its relation with Mr. Bristow at that point?

Regardless of its nature, has information gathered by Mr. Bristow been used for judicial purposes, in Canada or elsewhere, since 1989? Yes or no? These questions do not touch upon official secrets, and they can be answered by a simple yes or no. We could not find out.

These vague answers, or even the lack of answers, leave Quebecers and Canadians with an uneasy feeling which may well undermine their confidence in certain institutions. Yet, we should reinforce public confidence in those institutions. The setting up of a royal commission of inquiry, as suggested by the Official Opposition, is justified since it would hear all those who can shed some light on certain activities. I am alluding to presumably illegal incidents. The idea is not to question the system as a whole but, rather, some specific actions and facts.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, I would like again to say to the opposition that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service does not cover the legitimate activities of any advocacy or protest organizations. It does not spy on legitimate organizations like political parties or unions, as the member opposite claimed.

Again, the opposition keeps harping on about events which took place over twenty years ago. Since then, we have had the McDonald Commission which helped to create the civil service as we know it today as well as SIRC. I also have the feeling that the opposition tends to remember only what suits its philosophy, and that is unfortunate.

Last night, as a Quebecer, I was very disappointed by the new Quebec government, when I heard Bernard Landry himself state publicly that he would weed out federalists hiding in all the Delegations General of the province of Quebec and that he was appointed to find out if they are true sovereignists. Sometimes, I think the opposition should look at itself and ensure that the government of Quebec will still respect the great majority of Quebecers who are federalists and not separatists.

I still want to point out to the hon. member opposite who is yelling at me that Canada is, after all, a land of open arms, a free country that first and foremost respects individual freedom. I think our government has made a commitment to examine in detail the allegations made against our services and to take remedial action if needed.

So, I do not see why we should spend $20 million to $25 million on a royal commission of inquiry, when we have not yet completed our own investigations, mainly through the Sub-Committee on National Security and the upcoming SIRC report. However, I want to add that I am deeply disappointed by the hon. member, who belongs to a separatist party in the province of Quebec and wants to weed out the federalists, as suggested by Mr. Landry. I think this is unacceptable in a democratic society such as ours.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a funny way of getting out of a predicament. If we were in the military, we would say it was a good diversion tactic.

While talking about shifting the limelight to the National Assembly and what is going on in the new government in Quebec, incidentally, before 1976 we had a Liberal government that had an intelligence gathering services referred to as the CAD, which the Parti Quebecois government-I realize the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is too young to remember that, but this may be useful to other people who are listening-later removed.

What we are talking about today, however, is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. As for shifting the focus to Quebec- The hon. member's answer is particularly disturbing since he is saying, more or less, that now the National Assembly has a new Parti Quebecois government, the separatists are in power, and the hon. member gets all upset and blurts out this type of question. The more I hear this "nervous" reaction the more I am convinced we should be concerned about the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I must say that to me, this kind of nervous-Nellie reaction to the new Parti Quebecois government is all the more reason to support the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse.

I would just like to remind this House that the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the members of the Parti Quebecois were elected in the same way as the hon. member. I respect the fact that he was elected to represent another party in my province. I respect him as an elected representative, elected by constituents who put their trust in him. However, when he goes on in this way, he infers that the people of Quebec-and I will not be unparliamentary-showed poor judgment in electing members of the Parti Quebecois, and because of that, people should be wary and feel insecure about this new government, but after all, like the members of the Reform Party who were elected in Western Canada by people who used their good judgment, after a democratic debate, these people were elected to represent them.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

Sometimes separatists say that after separation the new Quebec can still retain a shared currency with the rest of Canada and even a shared citizenship, which is somewhat contradictory in my view.

Does the member feel that the new, separate Quebec should also expect to share CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although more calm than his predecessor, the hon. member nevertheless suggests, when talking about separatism, that we are wicked people who wish to inflict hardships on members on the other side, whereas we wish to remain good neighbours and friends as much as possible.

As regards the question, you will understand that I represent the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. I am willing to act as a messenger or an interpreter and to pass on the question, but I think that it should be answered by an elected Parti Quebecois government after it has won the referendum. Therefore, I believe the question is rather premature or that it should be asked instead during a referendum campaign. Please understand that as a member of the opposition, I have no precise mandate to talk in the name of the Government of Quebec. That could be the kind of service that could be maintained.

I take good note of the member's question and I thank him for his interest but this is all I can do for the time being. As a member of the opposition I am more used to asking questions than to answering them.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that he does not represent all Quebecers, and neither do we, I admit.

But we have to take into account the commitment of our government, of this sub-committee, which is to look at this question in depth. I believe that today's question was to determine whether or not we needed a parliamentary commission. This sub-committee includes one member of the Bloc Quebecois and one member of the Reform Party, and along with them some of us on this sub-committee want to shed some light on the allegations against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I can assure the hon. member that once the reports of the sub-committee or even the SIRC have been submitted to Parliament, he will have the opportunity to look at them, and make enlightened judgments.